3.9 Article

Cyclophosphamide-induced oxidative stress in brain: Protective effect of hot short pepper (Capsicum frutescens L. var. abbreviatum)

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 227-233

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.etp.2009.03.011

关键词

Pepper; Phenol; Antioxidant; Cyclophosphamide; Brain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study sought to characterize the distribution of phenols and antioxidant activities in hot short pepper (Capsicum frutescens var. abbreviatum) and their inhibition of cyclophosphamide-induced oxidative stress in rat's brain. The total phenol content and antioxidant activities of pepper flesh (pericarp) and seeds were determined in vitro and in vivo. The results of the study revealed that intraperitoneal administration of cyclophosphamide (75 mg/kg of body weight) caused a significant increase (P<0.05) in the malondialdehyde (MDA) content of the brain; however, there was a significant decrease (P<0.05) in the brain MDA content, in those of rats fed diet containing pepper; the flesh showed a higher inhibitory effect. In addition, dietary inclusion of the pepper (seed and flesh) also caused a dose-dependent inhibition of serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (SGOT), glutamate pyruvate transaminase (SGPT), alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin; likewise, dietary inclusion of the flesh inhibited MDA production than the seeds. The higher inhibition of oxidative stress in brain and serum enzymes and metabolites by the flesh could be attributed to its significantly higher (P<0.05) total phenol content, reducing power and free-radical scavenging ability. Therefore, dietary hot short pepper (Capsicum frutescens L. var. abbreviatum) could prevent cyclophosphamide-induced oxidative stress in brain; although the flesh is a better protectant, the possible contributory role of the seeds cannot be neglected. However, this protective effect of the pepper could be attributed to their antioxidant properties. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据